The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation

The present research examined the effect of procedural fairness and trust in an authority on people's willingness to cooperate with the authority across a wide range of social situations. Prior research has shown that the presence of information about whether an authority can be trusted moderates the effect of procedural fairness. If no trust information is available, procedural fairness influences people's reactions. This is not the case when information about the trustworthiness of the authority is present. In the present article, it is argued that information about whether the authority can or cannot be trusted may also moderate the effect of procedural fairness in predicting levels of cooperation. Assuming that the use of fair procedures by authorities that cannot be trusted is less influential than is the enactment of procedures by trustworthy authorities, it is predicted that trust in authority moderates the influence of procedural fairness on cooperation in such a way that procedural fairness has a positive effect on cooperation primarily when trust in authority is high. Results from 4 studies (2 experimental studies and 2 field studies) provide supportive evidence for this interaction.     

Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation

The present research examined the effectiveness of leadership in influencing cooperation in social dilemmas by focusing on the procedural fairness and favorability of leaders’ outcome decisions. We predicted that leader’s influence on cooperation would be determined by the fairness of the procedures used, but only so when received outcomes were unfavorable. Across two experimental studies, support for this hypothesis was found. Both in Study 1 (using accuracy as a manipulation of procedural fairness) and Study 2 (using voice as a manipulation of procedural fairness), it was found that procedural fairness influenced contributions in a public good dilemma only if outcomes were unfavorable (i.e., participants received less than an equal share), whereas procedural fairness did not influence level of contributions when outcomes were favorable (i.e., participants received more than an equal share).     

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

When the procedures people experience are uncertain, factors unrelated to principles of procedural justice may nevertheless shape procedural justice judgments. This paper investigates two of these factors: an individual’s level of social identification with the group enacting the procedures and the outcomes associated with the procedure. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) levels of identification promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. It was also predicted and found that desirable (vs. undesirable) outcomes promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. These effects only emerged in the absence of direct information indicating whether procedures were (un)fair. By showing an influence of identification and outcomes on procedural justice judgments under conditions of informational uncertainty, these studies provide important experimental evidence that integrates and extends previous research on justice, identity, and uncertainty to understand subjective evaluations of process fairness.     

Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures

The current research investigates the role of relative intragroup status as a moderator of people’s reactions to procedural justice. Based on a review of the procedural justice literature, the authors argue that information about intragroup status influences people’s reactions to variations in procedural justice. In correspondence with predictions, two experiments show that reactions of people who have been informed about their intragroup status position (either low, average, or high) are influenced more strongly by voice as opposed to no-voice procedures than people who are not informed about their intragroup status. It is concluded that knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedural justice.     

不确定感在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用

以公平启发理论为基础,结合不确定管理理论,采用情境实验法(实验1)和行为实验法(实验2),探讨了不确定感这一工具性动机在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用。研究结果发现:(1)他人的程序公正会促进自我的合作行为的出现;(2)不确定感降低了自我的合作行为的出现;(3)不确定感中介了他人的程序公正对自我的合作行为的影响。     

Procedural fairness predicts cooperative behaviour for high-self-esteem individuals but not for low-self-esteem individuals

Cooperation is vital for modern society. Previous studies showed that procedural fairness promotes cooperation; however, they mainly focused on cooperation intention, which may fail to reveal actual cooperative behaviour. Moreover, little is known regarding the personality boundary of the effect of procedural fairness on cooperation. Guided by previous findings that self-esteem increases sensitivity to procedural unfairness, we attempted to explore the moderating effect of self-esteem on the association between procedural fairness and cooperative behaviour. In Experiment 1, 160 participants' self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; procedural fairness was manipulated in two conditions, depending on whether money was allocated in an economic game by rolling the dice twice or an allocator's arbitrary choice. Cooperative behaviour was assessed using the chicken game paradigm. Experiment 2 (148 participants) aimed to replicate and extend the results of Experiment 1 using a more rigorous experimental design, in which the possible effect of outcome favourability was excluded. The results of both experiments consistently showed that procedural fairness positively predicted cooperative behaviour, and this association was significant in high-self-esteem individuals, but not in low-self-esteem individuals. These findings shed light on the vital role of self-esteem in understanding the relationship between procedural fairness and cooperative behaviour.     

How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness

The present research examined the effect of leaders' procedural fairness and perceived charisma on an important organizational process: cooperation. Both charisma and procedural fairness were predicted to have a positive effect on cooperation, and procedural fairness and charisma were predicted to interact such that their effects are stronger alone than in conjunction. Results from a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional survey, and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. Results from the laboratory study also showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on the sense of group belongingness. It is concluded that leader charisma and procedural fairness may engender cooperation because they appeal to relational concerns.     

Procedural Justice and Culture

The past fifteen years have seen the development of a considerable research literature on the social psychology of procedural justice (see Lind & Tyler, 1988, for a review). Procedural justice research reveals some serious shortcomings in the exchange theories that have traditionally dominated Western analyses of the social psychology of groups, and in so doing, the procedural justice literature has important ramifications for cross-cultural psychology. Results from a number of studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe show that individualistic, self-interest based models of human behaviour are insufficient to explain procedural justice phenomena. Instead, procedural justice effects frequently reveal strong group-oriented concerns and motivations even in cultural contexts generally thought to be characterized by individualistic orientations. The research literature also shows that if a group's procedures are judged to be fair, people are more likely to show group-oriented behaviour and to hold more favourable attitudes toward the group and its leaders. These findings have led to the development of a theory of justice judgments—the Lind and Tyler group-value theory—which is based on group norms and relations rather than on social exchange theory. We describe a general model of social behaviour that integrates group- and individually-oriented behaviour, and we discuss the implications of the model for social and cross-cultural psychology.     

Who Delivers Justice? Source Perceptions of Procedural Fairness1

Tyler and Bies (1990) argue that how leaders enact and apply formal procedures can affect perceptions of procedural fairness as much as the formal procedures themselves. This study examined directly the extent to which workers see either formal policies and procedures or their supervisors as the source most responsible for the procedural fairness they receive in their performance evaluations. Group differences in these source perceptions between exempt and nonexempt workers were also explored. Results indicate that workers attribute the responsibility for procedural fairness jointly and independently to both their organization's formal policies and procedures and to their supervisors. Results at the group level of analysis indicate that nonexempt workers perceive formal policies and procedures to be more responsible for procedural fairness than do exempt workers. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向

社会公平从古至今都是人类追求的崇高社会理想。对社会公平的感知即社会公平感直接决定着个体的机构信任,并影响其公共合作参与。本研究将社会公平感分为分配公平和程序公平,将机构信任度分为工具信任和动机信任,采用实验室情境设计的方法,引入最后通牒博弈和免责博弈范式,通过2个实验系统探讨"公正无私,一言而万民齐"的因果机制。研究发现分配公平与程序公平正作用于个体的公共合作态度与意向,在此基础上建立起公共合作的双路径模型:外部路径由分配公平产生工具信任和动机信任,进而触发公共合作;内部路径由程序公平产生动机信任和工具信任,进而触发公共合作;二者结合构成个体参与公共合作的双动力系统。双路径模型的适用性在组织情境和社会情境下均得到了支持。     

The development of procedural knowledge: An alternative explanation for chronometric trends of mental arithmetic

In a review of the Chronometrie literature, M. H. Ashcraft (Developmental Review, 1982, 2, 213–236) concluded that the development of number fact efficiency is due to a shift from relying on procedural knowledge such as counting to relying on declarative knowledge (a stored network of facts). This model assumes that all procedural processes are slow or remain slow, which is probably not the case. An alternative account posits that the key change in number fact efficiency involves a shift from slow counting procedures to principled procedural knowledge. As rules, heuristics, and principles become more familiar and interconnected, their use, for example, in producing the number facts becomes more automatic. The use of such procedural knowledge would be cognitively more economical than storing individual facts in long-term memory. Finally, existing Chronometric data can readily be interpreted in terms of this alternative model.     

The personality basis of justice: The five‐factor model as an integrative model of personality and procedural fairness effects on cooperation

Building upon the self‐based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005 ), the present study investigates the relationship between the five‐factor model (FFM) and cooperation. Study 1 (N = 56), an experiment conducted in the laboratory, and Study 2 (N = 116), a field study conducted in an organisational context, yielded a moderator effect between neuroticism and procedural fairness in explaining cooperation. Study 3 (N = 177) showed that this moderator effect was mediated by the self‐uncertainty and relational variables proposed by the self‐based model of cooperation. It is concluded that the FFM is useful in explaining cooperation and contributes to a better understanding of (procedural) fairness effects. Moreover, the necessity to build integrative, multi‐level models that combine core and surface aspects of personality to explain the effects of fairness on cooperation is elaborated upon. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice

A classic debate in the organizational justice literature concerns the question of whether procedural justice and distributive justice are independent constructs. We investigate this question by using fMRI methods to examine brain activation patterns associated with procedural and distributive unfairness. We observed a clear dissociation of activation between these two forms of justice, and only a minimal amount of shared activation in the hypothesized regions. Specifically, unfair procedures evoked greater activation in parts of the brain related to social cognition, such as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and the superior temporal sulcus (STS), whereas unfair outcomes evoked greater activation in more emotional areas of the brain, such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior insula (AI) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We interpret the findings as supporting the notion that the two forms of justice reflect distinct constructs, while recognizing that, as forms of justice, they are closely related nomologically.     

Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?

When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, their judgments of both outcome and procedural fairness become driven more by whether outcomes support or oppose their moral mandates than by whether procedures are proper or improper (the moral mandate effect). Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect. In particular, people with moral mandates may (a) have a greater motivation to seek out procedural flaws when outcomes fail to support their moral point of view (the motivated reasoning hypothesis), (b) be influenced by in-group distributive biases as a result of identifying with parties that share rather than oppose their moral point of view (the group differentiation hypothesis), or (c) react with anger when outcomes are inconsistent with their moral point of view, which, in turn, colors perceptions of both outcomes and procedures (the anger hypothesis). Results support the anger hypothesis.     

Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics

A long tradition of research on mathematical thinking has focused on procedural knowledge, or knowledge of how to solve problems and enact procedures. In recent years, however, there has been a shift toward focusing, not only on solving problems, but also on conceptual knowledge. In the current work, we reviewed (1) how conceptual knowledge is defined in the mathematical thinking literature, and (2) how conceptual knowledge is defined, operationalized, and measured in three mathematical domains: equivalence, cardinality, and inversion. We uncovered three general issues. First, few investigators provide explicit definitions of conceptual knowledge. Second, the definitions that are provided are often vague or poorly operationalized. Finally, the tasks used to measure conceptual knowledge do not always align with theoretical claims about mathematical understanding. Together, these three issues make it challenging to understand the development of conceptual knowledge, its relationship to procedural knowledge, and how it can best be taught to students. In light of these issues, we propose a general framework that divides conceptual knowledge into two facets: knowledge of general principles and knowledge of the principles underlying procedures.     

How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness

Although studies have linked procedural justice to a range of positive attitudes and behaviors, the focus on justice has neglected other aspects of decision-making procedures. We explore one of those neglected aspects: procedural timeliness—defined as the degree to which procedures are started and completed within an acceptable time frame. Do employees react to how long a procedure takes, not just how fair it seems to be? To explore that question, we examined the potential effects of procedural timeliness using six theories created to explain the benefits of procedural justice. This integrative theory-based approach allowed us to explore whether “how long” had unique effects apart from “how fair.” The results of a three-wave, two-source field study showed that procedural timeliness had a significant indirect effect on citizenship behavior through many of the theory-based mechanisms, even when controlling for procedural justice. A laboratory study then replicated those effects while distinguishing procedures that were too fast versus too slow. We discuss the implications of our results for research on fostering citizenship behavior and improving supervisors’ decision-making procedures.     

Time-Out in the Treatment of Childhood Behavior Problems:

Even though time-out procedures have been subject to extensive empirical investigation and are often assumed to be the appropriate treatment for a variety of childhood behavior problems, there are implementation problems and complexities, which often go unrecognized in the literature. This article presents a comprehensive model detailing procedural parameters, as well as subject and situational factors, which should be explicitly recognized and considered in utilizing, and empirically investigating, time-out. Also presented are methodological and theoretical issues relevant to researches and practitioners.     

Evaluating backward chaining methods on vocational tasks by adults with developmental disabilities

Backward chains are widely used to teach complex skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Implementation of chaining procedures may vary regarding untaught steps and there is little to guide practitioners in the selection of chaining procedures. Moreover, there is a dearth of research evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of procedural variations of behavior chains. The purpose of this study was to extend previous research by evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and preference for four procedural variations (i.e., teacher‐completion, participant‐completion, no‐completion, and a control condition) of backward chains across vocational tasks with adults with developmental disabilities. Although procedural variations effectively established vocational skills, the participant‐completion procedure (in which the instructor implemented a least‐to‐most prompt hierarchy during all untrained steps in the chain) was the most efficacious backward chaining procedural variation and efficient in terms of sessions to mastery. The no‐completion procedure (in which the instructor completed all untrained steps in the chain out of view of the participant) was least efficient across trials, sessions, errors, and total duration to mastery. One participant preferred the no‐completion condition while the other two participants showed an initial preference for the teacher‐completion condition that changed to preference for the no‐completion condition. Vocational skills maintained 1‐ and 4‐weeks postmastery. Stakeholders rated goals, procedures, and outcomes as socially valid.     

Explaining the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship: Relying on relational concern or instrumental concern?

People can extract relational information (i.e., relational concern) as well as instrumental information (i.e., instrumental concern) from decision‐making procedures. Thus, both instrumental and relational concerns are assumed to influence the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Drawing from social exchange theory, the different kinds of concerns may lead to form different exchange relationships (social exchange relationship vs. economic relationship), which can be indicated by two forms of trust (affect‐based trust vs. cognition‐based trust). We built a model of trust mediation in which procedural justice predicted affect‐based and cognition‐based trust. Further, we also tested the hypothesis that high (compared with low) group identification individuals are more likely to rely on relational concern to construct procedural justice and judge legitimacy of authority, because they use procedural fairness information to infer the quality of their relationships with the authority. The results of an experiment (Study 1) demonstrated that both affect‐based trust and cognition‐based trust mediated the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Moreover, a field study (Study 2) showed that affect‐based trust mediated the relationship between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy primarily among individuals with high group identification whereas cognition‐based trust mediated this relationship primarily among those with low group identification.